Blaisdell v. Lewis
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the District Court. Assumpsit for refusing to employ the plaintiff at certain daily wages according to contract. The evidence tended to show that, by parole, it was agreed that the defendant would hire the plaintiff to labor for the defendant at Hallowed, but nothing was stipulated as to the continuance of the service.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the District Court. Assumpsit for refusing to employ the plaintiff at certain daily wages according to contract. The evidence tended to show that, by parole, it was agreed that the defendant would hire the plaintiff to labor for the defendant at Hallowed, but nothing was stipulated as to the continuance of the service. After the contract was made, the plaintiff, who resided at Bail, received a letter from the defendant, notifying that the defendant had postponed the time for the plaintiff’s coming to Hallo well, till further notice. The plaintiff never went to Hallowell. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Wells, J.,
orally.—An infirmity in this contract is, that it fixed no time during which the plaintiff’s services'should be rendered to the defendant. Suppose the plaintiff had gone to Hallowell, and tendered his services, there was nothing to prevent the defendant from discharging him at the end. of a single day. In such a contract there is no value.
Exceptions sustained.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
- Terrio v. Millinocket Community HospitalSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
- Russell & Axon v. HandshoeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
- Rowell v. Jones & Vining, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1987
- Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. WillettSupreme Court of Florida · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.